220
‘What a circus’: eligible US voters on why they didn’t vote in the 2024 presidential election
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
220 points (96.2% liked)
News
23600 readers
4135 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not according to the article. Lots of voters in solid red or blue states didn't see a point, and who am I to argue. Thanks to gerrymandering, this is often true even for local races. Why vote for a party that supports genocide when your vote is nothing but virtue signaling for a party bereft of virtue?
I’d be the one to argue ….. I mean, fine if you really don’t see the point, but the reasoning on half of these people in the article is flawed. Either they were speaking out of ignorance or using excuses for poor citizenship, but when their reason contradicts reality, they should be argued
And even if you’re in a solid red or blue state (like I am), your vote counts. Maybe it won’t change the results but they do pay attention. At the very least we could always say the Democratic candidate would win the popular vote. Not this time.
If there’s ever going to be a chance at reforming the electoral college system, t starts by having the popular vote be consistently different from the electoral vote. From this election, there’s no reason for reform, because both had the same result
You say that yoyur the one to argue, but you made no argument. Why should someone in a solid red or blue state bother to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate that supports genocide? (I'm excluding other races here to keep it simple)
If you really like a candidate, then I can see voting for them even if you know your vote is ultimately irrelevant. But, if you justifiably hate both candidates, one marginally less, a lesser of two evils argument only holds weight when your vote might actually matter.
You didn't comment on the article, you responded to my point on a singular common justification.
Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either. If my vote might matter, then I would hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. If not, then I'd rather signal my disapproval of both.
Saying that my vote always matters is a nice cliche, but you know perfectly well that in a bunch of states it's just not true. If my vote put Harris over the top in Illinois, it's an absolute certainty that she got destroyed nationally. So, even if my vote mattered, it wouldn't matter that it mattered.
If the only real consequence of my vote is an impotent signal of approval, then not voting is an impotent signal of disapproval. That matters just as much, if not more.
Theoretical you and a bunch of real people just didn't give a shit about the fact that Trump is going to add domestic genocide to the agenda. Theoretical you was told directly by Trump himself that immigrants were "vermin" and "criminals" and he was going to get them all on the track to deportation on day one. Theoretical you should have taken a few seconds to put two and two together and realize that means concentration camps and anyone with darker skin being suspected.
But even if theoretical you is one of those darker-skinned people, you thought, "well he's not going to put me in a ~~concentration~~ deportation camp, so I don't have to worry about that while there's a genocide happening on the other side of the world that both candidates support."
It's pretty fucking heartless of theoretical you and all the actual people who didn't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves, but liked to pretend they cared by pretending that the one genocide was the only genocide.
I'm certainly convinced that you are a Democrat. I can tell because you ignored what I said and gave the rant you wanted to give, completely oblivious to the fact that none if it applies to what I said. You can't get any more Democratic than that. Scolding voters is not a great strategy.
As long as you are "certainly convinced," the truth doesn't matter now does it?
You're ignoring the fact that this person clearly would have voted for Harris if they were in a swing state. Harris did not lose Illinois and this person got to avoid getting blood on their hands via voting for perpetuation of genocide. That sounds far more ethical and rational than just knee jerk voting no matter what.
Local elections matter a lot. If the government shits its pants and nominates total morons who literally have no idea how to perform their job, it falls to state elections and officials to pick up the slack. And if your state elects fucking idiots, your last line of defense are your city officials. And you better pray they are damn good at their job.
You only want the best state officials, and the best only get elected if people vote. Out of 8,000,000 people in our state, 54 decided an election for a massive role during nov 2024. Four of those were from family, so a difference of about a block or three changed the outcome for millions of people. And we are deep blue. 50 votes away from a red candidate.
You have it backwards - not voting because of a single issue is the real virtue signaling. Voting for the lesser of two evils is simply pragmatic.
You're just making assertions, not arguments. You're also not paying attention because this makes zero sense as a response to my argument.
My entire point was that signaling is all than many voters can do because their vote is irrelevant. Skipping the presidential race is a signal too.
Also, fuck referring to the mass slaughter of civilians as just a "single issue".
No - fuck handing the government to a criminal and his fascist cronies in order to prove a point. The USA is nearly completely lost to the oligarchs and we played right into their hands. The war in Gaza is diespicable and awful and we just elected a group who will strip away even more of the power we had to try and stop that atrocity and future atrocities.
Know why Democrats lose so many damn elections? They don't know how to fucking listen to what people are saying. That you think this has anything to do with my comment is absolutely bizarre. Neither I, nor the voter I'm talking about cost the Democrats a damn thing.
No fucking kidding. You're half way to the truth. Now you just have to embrace the reality that "oligarchs" includes the Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis, Schumers, and (to a lesser degree) Biden's. Then you will really understand how truly fucked this country is.
Who's "we"? The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans have no shame. Democrats feel kind of bad about screwing us for their handlers, so they throw us a bone from time to time. In that dynamic, what's happening now was inevitable and it was just a matter of when.
We should have overthrown the Democrats in 2020 to create a new dynamic, but we missed our chance. Nobody knows when or if we will get another. The Republicans will never be any better than they are until they have to face an emboldened and left-populist Democratic party. The party we have is light years from being that.
In spite of your rather insulting way of putting things I actually agree with most of what you're saying, and yet even still voting Kamala was the easiest and most obvious choice voters had to make in decades and somehow still failed.
I didn't react well to being implicated in "handing the government to a criminal and his fascist cronies in order to prove a point". Criticism of voters in general gets under my skin because it's so counter productive.